RE: A modest proposal on WSDL semantics

Jonathan,

Good question.  For the most part, the proposal outlines ways that we can 
CONFORM to the TAG's advice.  The TAG has already agreed that a document 
should be at the end of the namespace URI:
[[[
. . .
Consensus points from 12 Feb ftf meeting are:
·       Namespace URIs should be dereferencable (to find useful explanatory 
material).
·       The TAG has not yet reached consensus on the nature of the material 
at the end of a namespace URI. The TAG discussed the value of human 
readable materials, schemas, and indirections to useful adjuncts.
]]]

So if we look at the options I proposed:

Option 0 (do nothing) gives no support to the TAG's advice.

Option 1 ("the namespace identifies the semantics") PARTIALLY supports the 
TAG's advice.

Options 2a, 2b, 3a and 3c FULLY support the TAG's advice.  However, since 
the TAG has not decided what KIND of document should be at the end of the 
URI, it is possible that if we adopted option 3a or 3b, then our spec could 
conflict with the TAG's recommendation if the TAG ended up recommending 
that the namespace URI point to a human-oriented document, rather than a 
machine-processable document.  None of the other options are in danger of 
conflicting with the TAG's advice, but options 2a and 2b support the TAG's 
advice more fully than option options 0 or 1.

At 09:58 AM 10/24/2002 -0700, Jonathan Marsh wrote:

>This seems to be identical to the tag issue 'What should a "namespace
>document" look like?' [1].  Is it?  If so, do we need to discuss this
>further in our group?  If even the TAG has not been able to reach
>consensus yet, do we have a chance?  If we do, will we get out of sync
>with the TAG?
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#namespaceDocument-8
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:52 PM
> > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: A modest proposal on WSDL semantics
> >
> >
> > I have drafted a brief, modest proposal for addressing semantics in
>WSDL
> > 1.2:
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wsdl-semantics-dbooth/semantics_clean.htm
> > I'm interested to hear whether people find this proposal reasonable.
> >
> > --
> > David Booth
> > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> > Telephone: +1.617.253.1273

-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273

Received on Thursday, 24 October 2002 14:58:03 UTC